In Leah Triplett Harrington’s
articles, “Seachange: Public Art in the 1980s” (2018) and “In Review: Terrain
Biennial” (2017) the art historian looks at site-specific works and the ways in
which the art interacts with the space and the public. The surge of public art
in the 1980s was part of revitalization efforts in some areas and a way of
preserving a sense of place. While Harrington focuses on Boston, MA, my
thoughts turn to my home city, Lowell, MA, and how art is still vital in the
revitalization of the Mill City. After
the founding of the Lowell National Historical Park, public art became ways to
anchor not only the park but also the city in honoring the past while making
improvements for the future. I suppose this idea applies to many permanent
public art installations, although there are some works hold no historical or
cultural references.
Some public works of art blend into
the background, noticeable only when a viewer takes the time to pay attention
to the environment in which they work or live. Harrington points to a few of
these works, such as Buster Simpson’s Situations
(1981) and Kate Burke and Greg Lefevre’s Boston
Bricks (1985), and asks if we noticed. Having visited Boston multiple times
since 1981, I am unable to say I noticed Situations
against a wall at the Downtown Crossing T-stop, although I recall chuckling at Burke
and Lefevre’s “You Are Here” brick that almost blends in to the brick-paved
sidewalk. That noticeability, or lack thereof, seems important although I am
unsure how.
Again, I think about the works in
Lowell and wonder how many people never noticed newer works like Stele for the Merrimack (1996) by Peter Gourfain even though the
work is located near a major intersection? Then I realize the work is tucked
away, almost hidden by a local credit union’s office building. Does the canal-side
location provide more context for the work or is that context lost due to the
out-of-the-way site? These questions relate more to my reading of “In Review:
Terrain Biennial” than to “Seachange: Public Art in the 1980s.” In the review,
Harrington discusses questions of barriers and the invisible lines between
public and private exhibition spaces. The location of Stele for the Merrimack can be confused for private property, not a
public space, if a tourist approaches from the downtown area, reducing the
visibility by way of an invisible (and non-existent) parameter. In contrast, the
works of Terrain Biennial were
located on private citizens’ lawns yet accessible to the public.
During a UML special guest lecture
given by Harrington, she also spoke about regionalism and regional arts scenes,
which reminded me of our visit and discussion with Maxine Farkas. In Lowell, we
have artists that produce works including the defunct mills as focal points or
backgrounds. The red brick buildings towering, looming, or implied depending on
composition, simultaneously present and not. In many ways, embedded in those visualizations
are the stories of this city, through the past lives of the mills, present
uses, and future dreams. I think the same holds true for public art of the
1980s.
